May 21, 2007

Mending and Amending

I've been increasingly ebullient today, in response to what I've heard on Hugh Hewitt's show: Out with the truculent vows never to vote for "amnesty;" in with the determination to use this compromise as a starting point, then offer a series of amendments to make it better, more effective, and more palatable to conservatives!

I think the bill is fairly good; I don't think it's perfect or anywhere near, and it's in desperate need of both mending and amending. Here are eight amendments I support -- plus one that I think is a poison pill.

1 The Patterico Amendment - kick out the slams!

This amendment is based upon a long-standing demand from Patterico: He notes that there are a lot of inmates serving time in prison who are also illegal aliens; and he wants to know why, once they finish serving their prison terms, they're not immediately deported:

So if deporting millions won’t happen, what can we do? I am for firmer enforcement in two areas: border security and aggressive deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes other than illegal entry. I have spoken about the latter idea until I am bluein theface. Why would we employ a single ICE agent to arrest illegals who are working and producing for society, when there are tens of thousands of unidentified illegals in our jails in prisons -- 34,000 in Los Angeles jails every year -- who will serve their sentences and hit the streets again to commit more crime? [Yes, I know two of those links are identical; I'm just quoting Patterico!]

No question about it, this is a great idea. The only thing I would add, and I hope Patterico would agree, would be some sort of review process during the deportation hearing that would examine exactly what the crime was and see if there are any special circumstances... for example, some elderly illegal immigrant who is mugged, and he defends himself with a concealed handgun -- for which he doesn't have a CCW permit, and for which some Mike Nifong clone prosecutes him.

But for the normal cases that a prosecutor like Patterico must see every day... serve time in the slam (or even get probation), and adios.

2 The sanctuary, shmanctuary amendment

In a typically psychotic overreaction to our "draconian" immigration laws -- that is, to the demand (just like the Nazis used to demand!) that immigrants should come here legally instead of illegally -- a number of very leftist city councils have declared their burgs to be "sanctuary cities," meaning the city cops are ordered not to enforce any federal or state immigration laws, or cooperate in any way with USCIS, or even to inquire into the immigration status of those they arrest.

(No word what the residents of those usually crime-ridden cities think about this; in true Democratic fashion, the people as such are discouraged from confusing matters by participating in the discussion.)

I think federal law is a little confusing about the status of these "sanctuary" cities: I would love to see an amendment that clarified that any mayor, governor, or other city or state executive who enforced a city ordinance or state law that violates, impedes, or interferes with federal immigration law is guilty of a felony and prosecutable in federal court; and perhaps he should also be sued for damages in federal civil court, though I'm not sure how such damages would be calculated.

Even more devastating, any city which enacts such an ordinance should see all federal funding suspended until such time as they are again in comliance with federal law. For big cities like San Francisco, this could amount to an abrupt budget hole tens of millions of dollars wide... about which, I'm sure the voters of that city would have strong feelings.

It's hard to imagine a law that is more obviously federal in scope than protecting the borders and determining who should or should not enter (or leave) the country. This is not a city-level decision!

And I think this is passable: Even though some really left-leaning Democrats will vote against it, the expansion of federal power will lure many Democrats to vote for it, as well.

3 Dreier's exit-strategy amendment

No, nothing to do with Iraq; Rep. David Dreier (R-CA, 72%) noted on Hugh Hewitt's radio show today (I think it was he) that, while any non-citizen, non-permanent-resident entering this country is required to show a passport and visa, and a record is made of the entry... there is no corresponding entry made when he leaves. This means we have no way to tell whether he has overstayed his visa.

Drier amendment number one would require persons here on temporary visas -- tourist, student, and of course the "guest" worker Y-visa -- would be required to show the visa when leaving the United States. At that time, the record would be checked to see whether he was within his legal visitation period; if he overstayed, he should be put on a blacklist, where entry would be forbidden for some period of time. (Again, we assume review is available.)

The computer system should also send out an alert when a temporary visa expires, but the person has not exited the country: Let's at least get a handle on who is overstaying his visa and by how long.

4 Derier's one-stop shopping amendment

The second amendment proposed by Congressman Dreier would be to get back to the idea that we would have only one, tamper-proof Social-Security or Immigration card for each person. The card number would link to a database that showed the immigration status of the cardholder; just stick it in the USCIS card reader, and it would show the immigration status of the cardholder, whether he was allowed to work, whether he was legally resident (and until when), and should also show on the screen a digital picture, front and side, of the actual cardholder.

At the moment, we still have numerous different cards -- Dreier said it was more than thirty types (!) -- which creates huge confusion in the minds of employers. I wholeheartedly endorse anything that simplifies the employer's duty to determine whether the person standing before him is legally allowed to work in this country.

5 Hewitt's retired servicemen's full-employment bill of 2007

Hugh Hewitt also proposed a couple of amendments in today's show. First, he noted that conducting the interviews and background checks for however many illegals come forward is going to be a monster task: It's potentially 12 million applicants, though in reality, I think it will be far fewer than that.

Still a very large number, though; in fact, it's essentially the same problem as mass deportation, with one very significant difference: Deportation requires a hearing by law, and nobody is going to passively accept it without getting his day in immigration court. By contrast, anybody would be perfectly happy if his application for a provisional Z-visa were granted without a face-to-face interview.

So Hugh suggests a "pre-sort" to reduce the stack of those that actually require some thought and an actual interview, the tough cases. I think the idea is to use existing records to sort all applicants into one of three buckets:

No-brainer acceptance: people here a long time, no criminal record, continuously employed, owners of real property, etc.

No-brainer rejection: people with a criminal background, people who are wanted by the police, have a history of alcoholism or drug use, have been rarely employed, have more than one name, move around a lot (not just following the harvest, I mean from city to city), and so forth.

The toughies: everybody who doesn't fit either category.

Hugh also suggests hiring retired policemen, servicemen, firefighters, and so forth to perform this initial screening... men and women with many years spent making life and death decisions and being held accountable for them. It's mostly a paperwork job, though I suppose they might have to make some phone calls, too; so it would be ideal for older people and the disabled.

Those in bucket 1 get their provisional Z-visa right away. Those in bucket 2 not only don't get one, they're brought to the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And those in bucket 3... well, they're the only ones who need to be interviewed.

This pre-sort should reduce the total number of face to face interviews down to a much more manageable number.

6 Hewitt's "stink-eye" amendment

Originally, Hugh appeared to be saying that people from countries that have extensive jihadist networks should not be allowed to get a provisional Z-visa at all... at least until after an extensive background check.

But this is self-defeating: Once a person from, say, Iran applied for a provisional Z-visa, he would immediately thereby come to the attention of ICE. But since he is disallowed from getting the immediate provisional Z-visa that applicants from Mexico or South Africa or Japan get, he would have no protection from swift and automatic deportation.

The mere act of applying for a provisional Z-visa would get him kicked out of the country!

Therefore, nobody from one of those "funny" countries could ever get a Z-visa, even if he were in the United States precisely because he was a political dissident who feared for his life. Hence the very people we most want to keep track of would remain forever in the shadows.

But today, Hugh clarified and extended his previous remarks (as the politicos say); he now suggests that if an applicant for a Z-visa is male, between the ages of 18 and 33, and from a country with extensive terrorist activity, he should go into a separate bucket -- one that receives much more scrutiny and perhaps even surveillance. He would still be protected from arbitrary deportation while his application was pending; but he would also be watched, and his application would be examined in greater detail.

The reason for this should be obvious.

7 The lax tax amendment

Captain Ed noticed an article in the Boston Globe that supposedly, the Bush Administration requested that the requirement that Z-visa applicants pay back taxes be removed from the immigration bill. I'm a little skeptical; the Globe is a notoriously unreliable (and very liberal) newspaper... but if true, I think this should be restored via amendment.

The Bush administration has a good argument that it would be virtually impossible to calculate precise back taxes plus penalties for years of working sub-rosa, cash in hand. But several others have suggested a workable solution: Require the applicant to pay an "estimate" of back taxes based upon various factors, such as how long the illegal immigrant worked here and what sorts of jobs.

This only works if the figure is not so absurdly high that nobody would ever apply for a Z-visa. Suppose, for example, you could only get the Z-visa if you meet the requirements -- clean background, continuous employment, etc. -- pay $5,000 in fines... and then fork over $298,440 in back taxes and penalties; then nobody would ever do it.

This is clearly a "poison pill" that would kill the entire deal. The Democrats, many congressional Republicans, and the White House will never go along with it (so stop dreaming about using this to stop the bill!)

But if the estimate were reasonable, with a workable installment plan for repayment, then I think it might fly. Careful, however!

8 The tick-tock amendment

This is one of mine that I just thought up. I don't like the idea of people applying for a provisional Z-visa... and then saying, "I won't get deported, so that is good enough for me."

I want people to assimilate, move on to a full Z-visa, then to a green card, and then to citizenship. I don't want anyone permanently living here who has no intention of ever becoming a citizen of this country... it's just the sort of thing that causes rioting by "northwest African youths" currently living in France or Sweden. Or Spain. Or Germany, Italy, Great Britain, or Australia.

So how about this: The provisional Z-visa comes with an expiration date. The timeclock starts when it's issued; but every time the Z-visa holder takes another step forward towards citizenry, the clock is restarted. For example, taking (and passing) citizenship classes, applying for a full Z-visa, applying for a green card, and so forth. The idea is to prevent the potential citizen from entering immigration stasis.

When your clock is about to run out, you get notices that you had better get off your butt and do something... at least contact USCIS and they will make suggestions. If you ignore the letter, then when your time runs out -- the ICE shows up on your doorstep and starts deportation hearings.

Again, a review board is necessary... especially if the holder claims that he has been trying to get the next step, but the USCIS is sitting on his application. (Long-time readers of Big Lizards know that Mr. and Mrs. Lizard speak from personal experience here!) But let's gradually turn up the heat on the stovetop, so that nobody turns it into an easy chair.

Finally, the amendment that tempts me, but is probably a deal-breaker for the Democrats... hence the one I reject:

XXX Hewitt's full-fencing saber cut XXX

Hugh made one more suggestion, but I really don't like this one: He wants an amendment to the effect that not one, single, solitary provisional Z-visa be granted until the first half of the fence is completed. That is, rather than start the process of granting provisional Z-visas now, and make the holders wait until half the fence is completed to apply for the full Z-visa -- Hugh wants to make all the applicants wait for completion of half the fence even to apply for the provisional Z-visa.

This is a perfect example of yet another "poison pill": It will take years to build 370 miles of double fencing. And when the time comes for granting provisional Z-visas, if the GOP is back in control of Congress, how does the Democratic Party know that Republicans won't pass a bill undoing the whole provisional Z-visa system? "Hah, hah, fooled you all!"

It's exactly the same problem of trust as Republicans face: We refuse to accept any bill that says, "I will gladly let you have border security Wednesday for regularization today." That's why the GOP senators negotiated border-security "triggers" for regularization.

So why on earth would the Democrats accept what Hugh Hewitt proposes -- which amounts to, "I will gladly let you have regularization Wednesday for border security today?"

I like the current system: Both the granting of provisional Z-visas and the border-security provisions of the bill begin now; and when border security is half done, then we can start granting full Z-visas.

So that's my run down on the possible amendments (and a very run-down lot we all are, now). Have you guys and gals any other suggestions?

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 21, 2007, at the time of 9:50 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2096

Comments

The following hissed in response by: colin

One more thing I think might be a good idea, if you think it's viable. During the construction of the fence, anyone caught crossing the border illegally is immediately deported and denied entry for a penalty period (say 10 years). I think this could be agreed to, because of all the new ways to enter after the z and y visas go into effect.

One advantage of instituting a more rational, fair, and predictable legal immigration policy is that, once you have it in place, there is no reason for an honest person to bypass it.

Under the current capricious, arbitrary, and at times even vindictive immigration "rules," ordinary, decent people who would make excellent Americans are denied for frivolous reasons or for no reason at all. Thus, even otherwise honest people are tempted to sneak in anyway; since they're being shafted for no reason -- much worse candidates are being allowed in, and the honest man isn't even told why he must stay out -- they don't believe the system is honest, so they feel no compunction about violating it. It's like stealing from a thief.

But when the system becomes predictable, then the ordinary, decent person knows what he must do to be accepted... and he bends his efforts in that direction.

In that environment, where anybody with the will can get in legally through the door, then anybody still trying to sneak in through the window can be presumed to be more nefarious than a simple illegal immigrant; and we can drop the hammer on him.

So in fact, I would support even harsher penalties for sneaking across the border after we have a rational, fair, and predictable immigration policy in place... say, incarceration for three months, and then deportation (for the first offense). Subsequent offenses carry increasingly onerous penalties.

And of course, before doing anything, we would thoroughly investigate who we have; maybe he's a wanted jihadist.

We will have a transition period, during which immigrants don't know that we have changed our system; but after a period of time, we can presume they have had an adequate opportunity to find out.

Here's one, and I think that it would be a "Deal-Maker", not a Deal-Breaker: Amend the Anchor Babies law.

In the U.S. Constitution, the 14th Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Let Congress note that any person NOT signed up for a Z-Visa or legally on the Path to Citizenship is forever more denied the automatic Citizenship of their child due to the fact that people who are here illegally and outside the new system have chosen to escape being 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

They choose to be outside our Laws? Then we recognize that they are choosing to outside our qualifications for Citizenship. Word it better, I'm not a law writer, but this could make it happen.

For the Democrats: If you really think that this law is good for folks, then they should have no problem signing up. For the Republicans: Would you get into pushing matches to sign the Bill if this were included?

Yeah... I think so...

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at May 22, 2007 12:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Another: There has to be some sure provision that keeps American Citizens who may, shall we say 'have something to hide', from using this new law to create a new identity.

If all a criminal had to do was have a History of Employment for ten years and a name that does not set off any triggers on the background check (of COURSE you can't find my name in your system... I worked very HARD to stay out of your records, silly!) then I can see a wave of US Citizens seeking an Amnesty for all ill-gotten income. When we're gonna forgive back-taxes and fines, we're gonna get some takers. And not all of them will be from outside our borders.

I'm not saying that there will be a LOT of them, they have to have not been caught yet to avoid having fingerprints on file and such. But you can't offer that kind of free ride without making sure you aren't giving local criminals a free pass alongside our newly discovered neighbors.

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael at May 22, 2007 12:45 AM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd,

I hate to burst your bubble on #3 but under the 1996 ACT, also called IRAIIRA, it is already a mandatory federal law that everyone has their exit recorded and they are to turn in their I-94.

We don't punish those people who do not turn them in because we do not have the staffing levels to enforce entry into the United States, let alone someone's exit. It's not their fault that we have no one on the Souther Border for them to turn their cards into.

Not only that, but things get really confusing when you are dealing with Canada and Mexico. Confusing to the point that the process wouldn't work if it were automated.

For example, you pay $6.00 to come here as a visitor and you get an automatic 6 months. You can get up to a year. So let's say you are a Mexican citizen coming for two weeks to San Francisco. When you go home you realize that you will be back in two months. If you keep your I-94 card, it is still valid for another 5 months after you trip is done. If you travel to Mexico or Canada, we have something called automatic revalidation. This means that you don't have to obtain another I-94 if the one you currently have is still valid. So you can go in and out, in and out, in and out on the same document for 6 months as long as you are going to Canada and Mexico.

But then, what if you keep the document, go out prior to 6 months, and then don't come back again before your 6 months is up? It will look like you are still here.

It's even more complicated than what i'm making it here but it is difficult to explain.

The basic point is, we've already got a law that requires the federal government to record everyone's exit as well as entrance. But it's a similar law to requiring all vehicles to get 100 miles per gallon. We can't do it, so we just ignore the law.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi at May 22, 2007 1:36 AM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Another thing....

Why is there a time clock on the Z visa? This frightens me.

You can't figure out if someone is a bad guy in 24 hours. One of the big problems we have today with illegal immigration is that the State Department issues the visa and the Deparment of Homeland Security (CBP Officers like me) inspect the passenger and their visa when they use it on the border.

What ends up happening is the State Deparment, having to meet some kind of quotas, says, "Well, the immigration guy will stop this fellow if there is anything wrong." and the immigration guy says, "Well, the State Department issued them a visa so they must be alright."

And we each blame the other guy which results in lot's of overstays and bad guys getting into the country.

Now you pile on a new Z visa and say that if they aren't caught or figured out in 24 hours, they are in! Silliness. They get their visa, are not found out for whatever reason, come in a week later into the United States and are caught by a CBP Officer who managed to figure out something the State Department guy didn't figure out and you're telling me we can't do anything because the 24 hours is up?

I have to ask, why put a time limit on it at all? If you don't deserve a Z visa on Wed you still don't deserve one on Sunday, even if you managed to get one somehow.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi at May 22, 2007 1:47 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Have you guys and gals any other suggestions?

Anyone who has been previously deported and found once again inside our borders, does not get a hearing, mere verification that they are indeed the person in the previous deportation order should be all that is required.

I mean this is a travesty

An illegal immigrant who has been arrested previously on drug and firearms charges and deported seven times Friday pleaded not guilty to illegally re-entering the United States.

Felipe Garcia-Morales, 28, a citizen of Mexico, entered the plea and agreed to be represented by a federal public defender.

Declare illegal border crossing a forcible felony punishable by a mandatory minimum prison term of ten years and authorize the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm by peace officers trying to prevent it. Advertise the law in all Mexican media.

Anyone who has been previously deported and found once again inside our borders, does not get a hearing, mere verification that they are indeed the person in the previous deportation order should be all that is required.

What if he claims he filed an I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, and claims it was granted?

Don't you need a hearing to decide whether he's telling the truth?

As to your second suggestion, I'm looking for amendments that will make the bill more likely to pass, not less.

What if he claims he filed an I-212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission Into the United States After Deportation or Removal, and claims it was granted?

Don't you need a hearing to decide whether he's telling the truth?

How about some reality here Dafydd maybe they can verify the existence of the documentation you speak of but don't you think after SEVEN previous deportations that it is s little ridiculous to require the expense of a trial with a State appointed and paid for legal counsel?

The disagreement I have with the Y and Z visas [visae?] are that they can be used by the whole world, when really we're talking about immigrant Christians [ok Catholics easily prone to marxist thought] from Mexico and Central America. I think the debate should be limited for those two visa categories to people from those countries. For everyone else, the visa entry should be allowed to accomodate a reasonable growing economy, maybe 1 to 1.5 Million legal immigrants a year using a version of the OLD system. The problem with the old system is that it limits immigration too much in view of the growth in our economy. It can be expanded by increasing the quota.

I am not proposing death squads or machine gun towers. This is the law for residential burglary in many, if not most, states.

The law is unsettled in this area. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that there is diminished Fourth Amendment protection at the border, in a subsequent case it severely limited the authority of the police to use deadly force against someone who was not himself threatening the imminent use of deadly force. One result is border patrol agents going to prison for shooting unarmed drug smugglers. They should at least be protected from criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

Ancient Sparta bragged that it did not need walls because her warriors were her walls. There was a little more to it than that. Any undefended fence will have a thousand holes in it the day after it's built. Imagine this scenario: A border patrolman responds to an alarm at some point in the fence. He sees the illegal with his pickax and portable Skilsaw making a man-sized opening. He yells: "Hey, you can't do that!" The illegal stops: "Esta bien, gringo. Hasta manana."

As for the draconian penalty I propose, that is also based on valid criminology. The greater the probability of punishment, the smaller the penalty neessary for deterrence. The lower the probability of punishment, the greater the penalty needed. We will never allocate the resources to prosecute more than one in a thousand. But for people who are coming here to work to feed their families, even a one in a thousand chance that they will not hold their children for the next ten years may be enough to deter them.

I still have only one requirement, other than the excellent ones you have suggested. That is, that possession of a Z-visa, provisional or full, is the MINIMUM acceptable requirement for ALL employment, starting today, becoming effective as soon as the new, secure employee verification system is online. That is, no visa, no job. There are, of course, some ancillary problems with this simple but essential dictum. First, we should allow employers to pay the $1000 application fee (or even require it, since they benefitted, presumably). Second, We have to decide what we mean by "criminal activity, disqualification by." If we mean using a false Social Security number, or tax evasion, or human trafficking (his family), or driving without a license, or any other "related" crime for which we are going to grant some sort of semi-amnesty, that's one thing. But even if we're going to be generous with our compassion, we're still going to have hundreds of thousands of people who will need to be given hearings and deported forthwith. They aren't all your wonderful long-time gardener or housekeeper. We can't just wish for that to happpen, Congress must have appropriated money to do it. Call it having the government "pay for its past dereliction of duty."

The above hissed in response by: snochasr at May 22, 2007 9:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: boffo

This morning there were amendments to cut or remove the guest workers. That seems to be an improvement. It's a bit surprising that it comes from the Democrats, but I'll certainly take it.

- Your brother Steve

The above hissed in response by: boffo at May 22, 2007 9:43 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I have one more, that may already have been addressed in the bill (does anyone really know what this monstrosity actually says?) and may or may not be as reported. I am told there are currently some 60,000-600,000 people living here who are under orders of deportation! Maybe a good start, and another way of convincing us that "we really, really mean to enforce the law this time" would be to find those folks and put them on the bus? The bill could set aside money and manpower for doing it. And while they're at it, make sure we take their biometrics in case they come sneaking back.

Yes, I'm sorry; in my haste, I mistook your proposed amendment for another one of Nk's.

How about some reality here Dafydd maybe they can verify the existence of the documentation you speak of but don't you think after SEVEN previous deportations that it is s little ridiculous to require the expense of a trial with a State appointed and paid for legal counsel?

But your suggestion wasn't limited to the particular example you cited; your amendment was that anyone who had been deported is denied a hearing if found in the country again, even if only deported once. And we have a specific procedure for those deported or removed to get back in -- legally -- under some circumstances.

My point is that you can never dispense with a hearing, for the same reason you can never dispense with a trial and proceed straight to punishment: Because, with millions of people, there will inevitably be some extraordinary circumstances.

Two data bases maybe with biometric and fingerprint IDs.... You are in the first and not the second, you get fast tracked out ot the country.

What if the second database is wrong? What if the person you pick up says he has the documentation from USCIS in his safe-deposit box? Dan, you can never, ever, ever have a rule that so and so is not even allowed a hearing; not even (per the Supreme Court) when he is an enemy combatant... though the hearing needn't be a full trial.

Nk:

My apologies for attributing a proposed amendment from Dan Kauffman to you.

One result is border patrol agents going to prison for shooting unarmed drug smugglers. They should at least be protected from criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

The Court ruled that shooting unarmed suspects was not "doing their jobs," just as it would not be, in most cases, if cops shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.

Snochasr, my Boffo brother Steve:

(That's a serial comma, not a parenthetical comma; Snochasr and Steve are two more or less different people.)

Mark Steyn convinced me many months ago that a guest-worker program was a really, really bad idea: It creates, in the heart of the country, a pool of foreign workers with no allegiance to the United States, no intention of becoming citizens or even living here permanently, completely alienated from our culture. That is a prescription for catastrophe.

I would much rather see a policy that those with provisional Z-visas were not covered by the minimum wage laws of the United States or of any state... then let the "guest-worker" jobs be taken by people who honestly want to be Americans and have a vested interest in our society and culture.

Kill the guest worker program! Let real immigrants take those jobs!

Snochasr alone:

I am told there are currently some 60,000-600,000 people living here who are under orders of deportation! Maybe a good start, and another way of convincing us that "we really, really mean to enforce the law this time" would be to find those folks and put them on the bus? The bill could set aside money and manpower for doing it.

Hm; it sounds good on its face. But can we limit it to those who would still be deported under the new rules?

That is, if somebody is under a deportation order solely for being here illegally -- for which he would not be subject to deportation were he found after having gotten a provisional Z-visa -- it seems a bit thick to deport him anyway because he had the bad luck to get caught today instead of a couple of months from now.

If he's under a deportation order for something that would get him deported even under this bill -- nefarious activity, for example -- then yes, let's appropriate the money to step up deportations of those undesirables.

The reason some Dems (specifically Dorgan) are proposing to take out the guestworker program is that they know it's a dealbreaker for the GOP. That's what the businesspeople who pay the piper and call the tune want. If they don't get it, the Republican backers will vanish and the bill will be mostly if not all dead.

And to Steve's brother ;-) I would love to see you address and interact with Bill Whittle's "broken windows" argument in his latest piece against legalizing the current lawbreakers. I certainly take his argument that it sends a bad message to people like my brother in law who did play by the rules and wait in line to get in.

I would love to see you address and interact with Bill Whittle's "broken windows" argument in his latest piece against legalizing the current lawbreakers. I certainly take his argument that it sends a bad message to people like my brother in law who did play by the rules and wait in line to get in.

I have addressed this argument extensively; if you click on the link that reads "Immigration Immolations" at the top of this post, right under the title, you will get a list of all my posts in this category. [I just put the link into this very paragraph, to make it even easier.]

Please note that my wife Sachi also immigrated here (from Japan), played by the rules, was never illegal, and eventually became an American citizen. But the horrors she went through, and those calamities suffered by friends of hers who were ordered to leave the country for no explicable reason, have convinced us both that the system is terribly broken.

In fact, it is so broken that a large percentage -- probably a very large majority -- of illegal immigrants did not sneak in because they were lazy, or because they were criminals, or because they wanted to "jump the line" (there is no line; that's one of the problems), or because they were unqualified for any other rational reason to immigrate into the United States.

They did so because they were denied entry for irrational, abritrary, or even vindictive reasons.

The fundamental premise of the "broken windows" theory, as developed by criminologists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, is that the law itself be rational, fair, and equally applied. In that case, one should always move aggressively to punish lawbreakers and never reward them.

But when the law itself is irrational, unfair, and applied selectively, the entire theory falls apart.

In that situation, lawbreakers should be forgiven, perhaps with minor punishment; and in some extreme cases, where the law was unusually venomous, certain lawbreakers would be called heroes... as we dub, e.g., those blacks and whites who defied the Jim Crow laws in the South prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You needn't believe that today's immigration system is as bad as Jim Crow; it certainqly is not. But, if you agree that the legal immigration system today is fundamentally and fatally flawed, then you certainly cannot invoke "broken windows" to oppose a bill that reforms the law -- but also forgives those who broke it in the past.

What if the second database is wrong? What if the person you pick up says he has the documentation from USCIS in his safe-deposit box? Dan, you can never, ever, ever have a rule that so and so is not even allowed a hearing; not even (per the Supreme Court) when he is an enemy combatant... though the hearing needn't be a full trial

They do not get the documentation allowing them to reenter, unless both databases are checked in their presence.

I don't conceed that the Privalege of entry into the US is a right requiring a "hearing" we don't have hearings at Consulates overseas for Visa applications we have interviews.

But looking at your statement the hearing could be an administrative interview, but no trials paid for by the taxpayer, no legal representation paid for by the tax payer, a simple finding they are or are not the person under a VALID deportation order.

Actually I think the database for someone allowed back in after being deported would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the one ordering deportation and they will be in it or not.

And if not, entry is denied. They do not pass go, they get carted off to the border.

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in,
.
Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Powerhouses

Milblogs

Bear Flag League

The Bear Flag League blogroll will resume when BFL switches from BlogRolling to some other link-management site that does not trigger "malware" security alerts. We apologize for the inconvenience, but, well, you know.